Modes How to maybe solve one of the problems of pvp in open...

[Aashenfox]

Then you need to put more detail into your proposal, because I've clearly misunderstood it.

End of the day though, it's still ultimately any given degree of dimming down ship specialisation - which FD are clearly against in introducing additional military slots. Either it makes little difference or drags all ships towards being the same build; a trade ship shouldn't be able to stand toe-to-toe with a warship.

You did answer the conundrum in the OP, that said - traders have "some" armour, "some shields" - effectively little effort. It's not entirely true to say any given ship cannot be survivable, it just requires some common sense and concession; even relatively cheap traders can be quite bolstered enough to survive a reasonable attack. And at the top end of the cash flow, little but an exceptional gank wing could dream of taking out my trader iCutter.

And with all due respects, should someone that puts minor effort into their game be nearly on par with those that dedicate serious time? Honestly, advice is rife out there on developing your ship builds. You don't need to be on par with every combat ship out there, but you can survive almost any of them.

Not suggesting a trader should be able to go toe to toe with a warship.

FD in implementing the extra military slots, thought they were giving some extra survivability or versatility, some additional defense, probably for purposes of pvp, but they took the wrong approach I believe. Perhaps I've misunderstood what they were trying to do with that, I don't know. Rather than adding restricted military sots, giving those who used their free slots for military slots as well ridiculous power, they should have given extra non-military slots, so that players could have as many military optional slots as they wanted bu t still be able to carry basic mission equipment without being at a disadvantage. It's not a dimming down, it's not a nerf, and as I said before, the current situations where I can stack so much resistance cos I've got only HRPs means there's no skill or decision in the build, I don't need to optimise for anything, I can optimise for EVERYTIHING! lol. Does that help?

As for that last sentence, I just don't know what that's got to do with anything. I'm the strongest advocate of effort equalling reward, which is why I love the engineers.

 

[Aekero]

so i did go back and read it, at least most of it, and all of your posts (op), I'm not entirely sure you addressed what I said. I get that you're not removing a slot, but you responded to someone that said we'd be mobbed by people saying they've been nerfed for pve by saying they should stay in solo. That wasn't his point, his point was you reduce pve effectiveness against pve mobs, the environment played in doesn't matter in that case.

so, I can at least accept your point that this would technically reduce the advantage of pvpers, but it wouldn't be nearly enough. If not restating my old point, let's say this: Most traders and the like aren't going to fight when vastly outgunned, period. Best case scenario 99% of the time is they get away, and removing some military slots from your fas isn't going to help that at all. That may not have been true 2 years ago, but it's pretty much true now. I'm sure there are some people playing combat frigates that travel with smaller capacity, armed for bear, but those people aren't the ones playing pve only I'd imagine.

Think about it, fully engineered pvp fas, take away 2 military slots, it just doesn't change anything. Tbh there are more efficient ways of negating pvp effectiveness, but what's the end goal here? No pvp? won't happen unless it's a pve server. "meaningful pvp"? shouldn't it mean something to blow up a trade vehicle and loot all the cargo if it won't drop it all?

You can "rp" whatever you want to justify the actions, there are jerks in real life that'd do whatever they wanted if not for consequences. That's what's missing. I do think that negating suicidewinder is a step in the right direction. If you want to pvp in your pimped out fdl, you better be expecting to pay the rebuy if you can't deal. Faster response times on system defense could help, more patrols, higher bounties on your head etc. The main issue currently is people can sidestep any sort of consequence in pvp.

 

[StiTch]

Not suggesting a trader should be able to go toe to toe with a warship.

FD in implementing the extra military slots, thought they were giving some extra survivability or versatility, some additional defense, probably for purposes of pvp, but they took the wrong approach I believe. Perhaps I've misunderstood what they were trying to do with that, I don't know. Rather than adding restricted military sots, giving those who used their free slots for military slots as well ridiculous power, they should have given extra non-military slots, so that players could have as many military optional slots as they wanted bu t still be able to carry basic mission equipment without being at a disadvantage. It's not a dimming down, it's not a nerf, and as I said before, the current situations where I can stack so much resistance cos I've got only HRPs means there's no skill or decision in the build, I don't need to optimise for anything, I can optimise for EVERYTIHING! lol. Does that help?

Nope I should have clarified I meant technical information...how many slots have to be non military etc.

The intention of the military slots was to encourage ship specialisation. Due to the nature of multirole ships being combat capable but intrinsically having greater internal space, they actually had an advantage over combat ships at combat; freedom of shield/SCB layout and the space for serious HRP health. Military slots let military ships gain an edge back on HRP/SCB padding, and the restriction prevents them becoming the next multirole ships.

I think I just find it hard to follow your line of thought. You're an advocate of effort equalling reward, but trying to make changes that reduce the potency of combat ship specialisation? Effort should achieve something rather than being for the sake of using time.

 

[Aashenfox]

so i did go back and read it, at least most of it, and all of your posts (op), I'm not entirely sure you addressed what I said. I get that you're not removing a slot, but you responded to someone that said we'd be mobbed by people saying they've been nerfed for pve by saying they should stay in solo. That wasn't his point, his point was you reduce pve effectiveness against pve mobs, the environment played in doesn't matter in that case.

so, I can at least accept your point that this would technically reduce the advantage of pvpers, but it wouldn't be nearly enough. If not restating my old point, let's say this: Most traders and the like aren't going to fight when vastly outgunned, period. Best case scenario 99% of the time is they get away, and removing some military slots from your fas isn't going to help that at all. That may not have been true 2 years ago, but it's pretty much true now. I'm sure there are some people playing combat frigates that travel with smaller capacity, armed for bear, but those people aren't the ones playing pve only I'd imagine.

Think about it, fully engineered pvp fas, take away 2 military slots, it just doesn't change anything. Tbh there are more efficient ways of negating pvp effectiveness, but what's the end goal here? No pvp? won't happen unless it's a pve server. "meaningful pvp"? shouldn't it mean something to blow up a trade vehicle and loot all the cargo if it won't drop it all?

You can "rp" whatever you want to justify the actions, there are jerks in real life that'd do whatever they wanted if not for consequences. That's what's missing. I do think that negating suicidewinder is a step in the right direction. If you want to pvp in your pimped out fdl, you better be expecting to pay the rebuy if you can't deal. Faster response times on system defense could help, more patrols, higher bounties on your head etc. The main issue currently is people can sidestep any sort of consequence in pvp.

Thanks for taking the time by the way. And writing such a considered post.

Take away 2 of the FAS's HRPs and you have taken a massive chunk of pure armor and a big chunk of resistance. They are no longer near impervious to pve weapons, a very important part of this.

A fat trade elephant can never stand and fight, being one resigns you to the brave sir robin playstyle. They are not factor in this equation, I would even probably give them a buff to their running away abilities if they asked me for one. Running around doing data missions and assassinations in a pve spec combat ship, you are going to get WRECKED when interdicted by someone specced for pvp, not carrying a disco scanner, or a fuel scoop, or a KWS or any cargo racks. Thats just silly. You're in an optimal pve ship for combat, but still the pvp ship has 50% better defense than you. That's all I'm saying. When military slots were added, if they had actually been the opposite, normal slots restricted, this problem wuld never have arisen. Too late now.

 

[Aashenfox]

Nope I should have clarified I meant technical information...how many slots have to be non military etc.

The intention of the military slots was to encourage ship specialisation. Due to the nature of multirole ships being combat capable but intrinsically having greater internal space, they actually had an advantage over combat ships at combat; freedom of shield/SCB layout and the space for serious HRP health. Military slots let military ships gain an edge back on HRP/SCB padding, and the restriction prevents them becoming the next multirole ships.

I think I just find it hard to follow your line of thought. You're an advocate of effort equalling reward, but trying to make changes that reduce the potency of combat ship specialisation? Effort should achieve something rather than being for the sake of using time.

Yeh, I've not got something across cos I don't suggest what you seem to think I do. I'm gonna have a think how I can explain better. I'll be back.

 

[grumpsalot]

OP has some merit, or you could just add a PVE flag in open and everyone would be happy.

 

[NecasekO]

When military slots were added, if they had actually been the opposite, normal slots restricted, this problem wuld never have arisen. Too late now.

This is a good point. FDev basically took the easy route of adding more slots (which doesn't break existing ships) instead of a deeper rebalance that may cause some existing ship builds to become invalid. Similar to how some ships had their hull mass reduced but none had their hull mass increased - as that could break things (ships having invalid thrusters or shield generators).

And BTW Sandro has said multiple times that at least shield booster stacking WILL be revisited. I just hope they have a look at HRP stacking and module damage mechanics at the same time.

 

[ToCBubbaZanetti]

The only 'griefers' in open are people who combat log. You can get in a ship and kill who you like otherwise. That's the rules.
Otherwise, good post, but one pvp'ers have suggested a dozen times already.

 

[Han_Zen]

I fully agree with OP. Not to solve any griefing issues, but to make the game better.

- Restrict all modules and utilities, except cargo racks to one per ship.

- Restrict SCBs, HRPs and MRPs to military slots only.

- Remove special effects and premium amo.

If any particular ship gets to weak from being restricted to one SB, just beef up it's base shield.

Problem solved. More fun for everyone.

 

[Vasious]

Wait so what about ships build for CZs, which full up slots with military items

Hamstinging some of my ships, which I use for PVE and MC fun, in exchange for having you come to open, is not a trade I would be willing to make.

I fully agree with OP. Not to solve any griefing issues, but to make the game better.

- Restrict all modules and utilities, except cargo racks to one per ship.

- Restrict SCBs, HRPs and MRPs to military slots only.

- Remove special effects and premium amo.

If any particular ship gets to weak from being restricted to one SB, just beef up it's base shield.

Problem solved. More fun for everyone.

Isnt that generifying all ships, and making lot of slot multi roles even more effective over specialised ships?

 

[Aashenfox]

Wait so what about ships build for CZs, which full up slots with military items

Hamstinging some of my ships, which I use for PVE and MC fun, in exchange for having you come to open, is not a trade I would be willing to make.



Isnt that generifying all ships, and making lot of slot multi roles even more effective over specialised ships?

But they're incorrectly balanced as it is, you see it as US getting hamstringed, I see it as the greater good. I go into CZs with my full milslot FAS too, doesn't mean I want to fly it exclusively when I'm in open so I'm competitive with griefers, and always run away when I'm not in it. Don't you think it's a bit much having 55% resistance to EVERYTHING? Wouldn't you prefer a litle thought process in your defence? Shouldn't it be; Thermal, kinetic, explosive, pick TWO?

 

[Sole Hunter]

The problem with PVP is peer to peer. Until we have a proper server and combat logging is removed from the game PVP will remain as it is. There's also various other game balance issues such as the engineers which would need to be addressed but that's never going to happen because FDev are clueless. PVP isn't the problem, it's how the game was designed in the first place.

 

[Han_Zen]

Wait so what about ships build for CZs, which full up slots with military items

Hamstinging some of my ships, which I use for PVE and MC fun, in exchange for having you come to open, is not a trade I would be willing to make.



Isnt that generifying all ships, and making lot of slot multi roles even more effective over specialised ships?

Quite the opposite. It's blocking multi roles from filling their slots with defensive modules. It's favoring ships with military slots and good base stats for combat.

 

[EvE4evah]

OP is pointless. If you fully specialize a ship towards assassination, and spend countless hours harvesting G5 mat/data and actually min-maxing the rolls, of course You should have a much efficient killing machine, albeit unable to fuel scoop, mining, scanning or jumping. Figures.

Also, people CAN escape aggression in Open, even as of now. Here's a (ironic, I know) guide:
1. Drop some cargo capacity for shields/hull.
2. Learn to submit, boost and highwake.
3. Don't gimp your whole fit, denying yourself survivability.
4. Since you're in Open, fly paranoid. Check contacts regularly.
5. You can even emergency drop from SuperCruise when the "new contact" ping appears.

Of course these aren't 100% effective. Not should they be, you're in Open, then balance your profits against your losses.


Efficient C&P / bounties is the way to go. Not, gimping ship specialization.

 

[Aashenfox]

OP is pointless. If you fully specialize a ship towards assassination, and spend countless hours harvesting G5 mat/data and actually min-maxing the rolls, of course You should have a much efficient killing machine, albeit unable to fuel scoop, mining, scanning or jumping. Figures.

Also, people CAN escape aggression in Open, even as of now. Here's a (ironic, I know) guide:
1. Drop some cargo capacity for shields/hull.
2. Learn to submit, boost and highwake.
3. Don't gimp your whole fit, denying yourself survivability.
4. Since you're in Open, fly paranoid. Check contacts regularly.
5. You can even emergency drop from SuperCruise when the "new contact" ping appears.

Of course these aren't 100% effective. Not should they be, you're in Open, then balance your profits against your losses.


Efficient C&P / bounties is the way to go. Not, gimping ship specialization.

People don't wanna run away. I play in solo for exactly that reason, I want to fight whatever I come across. No offence mate, but you haven't understood the proposal, you know we see eye to eye on a lot of things, I'm not going to sweet talk you. I would have expected your support on this as a theorycrafter. Please have another look, understand it and let me know what you think, it's s mechanics thing, not a 'git gud' thing.

 

[verminstar]

Just thinking out loud, I haven't given this full processing power yet, but let's get a discussion going and see...

The way I see it, the problem with pvping in open, is that the people who are just minding their own business, doing CGs, missions, whatever, are in ships that have possibly 'some' armor, 'some' shield batteries, but they'll be mostly technical, non military modules, limpet controllers, cargo racks, scanners, docking computer, etc etc.

The griefers on the other hand and those out looking for a pvp fight in general, have a military item in every single slot. Their ships are useful for NOTHING except dogfighting, they even have to dock to refuel and visit a nav beacon to scan a system. ANYTHING less than that is BADLY suboptimal. I enjoyed building my FAS, it is overpowered as hell, completely ridiculous, over 9000 (lol, unintentional reference there) effective armor against all conventional attacks (shieldless), but like that, I can only do one thing. Fight other players. I'm not even optimal for fighting one on one against NPCs as I don't have my warrant scanner.

This creates a huge disparity, the murderers are in untouchable ships and the victims are in squishy mission runners.

So, why not simply make it so you can't have a military item in every slot? If every ship was restricted in terms of military slots, you could still have a pvp meta ship and still run a few missions, and otherwise play the game, not having to refuel at stations, being able to disco scan and fuel scoop, and STILL pvp at the highest level the next minute.

I know if this was implemented, I would play in open from that moment on, knowing that I could be competitive against griefers in my mission runner, it would FREE me to play in open and LOOK FORWARD to my next interdiction. I could know I wouldn't have to face someone who was 50% stronger than me before skill even came into play.

Just a thought.

I like the idea...have seen similar ideas of restricting module type and number on ships before. The initial shockwaves are usually fairly salty to say the least as it will break the entire meta...no matter what argument ye use to back it up, its still technically a nerf. A necessary one perhaps...the disparity between ships dedicated to one thing only has too many extreme examples...a situation that engineers made so much worse.

 

[PeLucheuh]

No, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.

I'm so glad you're here. I need you to understand this, it's people like you who I admire that I want to sell it to.

I would be your content if I could just fit a, a disco scanner and a fuel scoop and still be competitive. How do you feel about that? If we both were able to be optimal meta and still carry the basic conveniences, wouldn't that be great? A thousand players like me looking forward to your interdiction, isn't that better? More viable ship builds, isn't that 'better'?

Of course I'm not syaing a T9 should take down a combat spec FAS, that's insane. Are YOU saying you need a FAS with 9000 effective armor and focused PAs TO take one down?

No, i am saying i can't take down a T-9 pilot using optimized defences who will have all the time he wants to run away and win. The game is balanced and there is no issues in Open if people play correctly according to its mechanics.

But yes, i will annihilate shieldless T-9 in 3 seconds.

 

[Andovar]

No, i am saying i can't take down a T-9 pilot using optimized defences who will have all the time he wants to run away and win. The game is balanced and there is no issues in Open if people play correctly according to its mechanics.

But yes, i will annihilate shieldless T-9 in 3 seconds.

A bit OT, but i have to ask...

I sometimes wonder if there's any "secret sauce" to this, or is it just a matter of common sense?
Is sufficient shields (with thermal mods), 4 pips to sys, chaff and some point defense "optimized"?
I only ask because I've never run into a harry potter type murderboat. So I don't know if my defenses would hold up to something like him, or if there's a very specific set equipment and mods that are considered crucial for survival.

 

[EvE4evah]

People don't wanna run away. I play in solo for exactly that reason, I want to fight whatever I come across. No offence mate, but you haven't understood the proposal, you know we see eye to eye on a lot of things, I'm not going to sweet talk you. I would have expected your support on this as a theorycrafter. Please have another look, understand it and let me know what you think, it's s mechanics thing, not a 'git gud' thing.

Fox, I get what you mean and value your frequent idea sprouts, even when I don't agree. And in this specific case, I can't agree because you're proposing a way in which a hauler, trader, explorer, could fight back against a fully oriented combat ship. Makes no sense. He should just try to run away. Now that makes sense.

 

[EvE4evah]

Now if what you're indirectly proposing is containment measures for the power creep and military modules being overpowered, we should get along well with these intentions, although it's a much distant objective and really hard to pull off. People who have gone through painstakingly time consuming routes in order to get "Dat HRP" and such, will hardly take it easy on FDev when their ships are suddenly nerfed… I can agree with your intentions but can't with your initial premise of - fighting back a fully combat engineered FAS with a trader ship -